Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

Gaza: The Logic Of Colonial Power

December 30, 2008 1 comment

As so often, the term ‘terrorism’ has proved a rhetorical smokescreen under cover of which the strong crush the weak

Nir Rosen

guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 08.00 GMT

________________________________________________________

I have spent most of the Bush administration’s tenure reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying Palestinian land. Bush’s final visit to the country he chose to occupy ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him, expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.

Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise. The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.

The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. “All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks,” as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.

I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the American government could bring about the needed changes. An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.

Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.

Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.

Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.

Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.

Not long ago, 19-year-old Qassem al-Mughrabi, a Palestinian man from Jerusalem drove his car into a group of soldiers at an intersection. “The terrorist”, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called him, was shot and killed. In two separate incidents last July, Palestinians from Jerusalem also used vehicles to attack Israelis. The attackers were not part of an organisation. Although those Palestinian men were also killed, senior Israeli officials called for their homes to be demolished. In a separate incident, Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid n his face. “The terrorist was arrested by security forces,” the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?

In September, Bush spoke at the United Nations. No cause could justify the deliberate taking of human life, he said. Yet the US has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes on populated areas. When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some “collateral” civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate. When you impose sanctions, as the US did on Saddam era Iraq, that kill hundreds of thousands, and then say their deaths were worth it, as secretary of state Albright did, then you are deliberately killing people for a political goal. When you seek to “shock and awe”, as president Bush did, when he bombed Iraq, you are engaging in terrorism.

Just as the traditional American cowboy film presented white Americans under siege, with Indians as the aggressors, which was the opposite of reality, so, too, have Palestinians become the aggressors and not the victims. Beginning in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were deliberately cleansed and expelled from their homes, and hundreds of their villages were destroyed, and their land was settled by colonists, who went on to deny their very existence and wage a 60-year war against the remaining natives and the national liberation movements the Palestinians established around the world. Every day, more of Palestine is stolen, more Palestinians are killed. To call oneself an Israeli Zionist is to engage in the dispossession of entire people. It is not that, qua Palestinians, they have the right to use any means necessary, it is because they are weak. The weak have much less power than the strong, and can do much less damage. The Palestinians would not have ever bombed cafes or used home-made missiles if they had tanks and airplanes. It is only in the current context that their actions are justified, and there are obvious limits.

It is impossible to make a universal ethical claim or establish a Kantian principle justifying any act to resist colonialism or domination by overwhelming power. And there are other questions I have trouble answering. Can an Iraqi be justified in attacking the United States? After all, his country was attacked without provocation, and destroyed, with millions of refugees created, hundreds of thousands of dead. And this, after 12 years of bombings and sanctions, which killed many and destroyed the lives of many others.

I could argue that all Americans are benefiting from their country’s exploits without having to pay the price, and that, in today’s world, the imperial machine is not merely the military but a military-civilian network. And I could also say that Americans elected the Bush administration twice and elected representatives who did nothing to stop the war, and the American people themselves did nothing. From the perspective of an American, or an Israeli, or other powerful aggressors, if you are strong, everything you do is justifiable, and nothing the weak do is legitimate. It’s merely a question of what side you choose: the side of the strong or the side of the weak.

Israel and its allies in the west and in Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have managed to corrupt the PLO leadership, to suborn them with the promise of power at the expense of liberty for their people, creating a first – a liberation movement that collaborated with the occupier. Israeli elections are coming up and, as usual, these elections are accompanied by war to bolster the candidates. You cannot be prime minister of Israel without enough Arab blood on your hands. An Israeli general has threatened to set Gaza back decades, just as they threatened to set Lebanon back decades in 2006. As if strangling Gaza and denying its people fuel, power or food had not set it back decades already.

The democratically elected Hamas government was targeted for destruction from the day it won the elections in 2006. The world told the Palestinians that they cannot have democracy, as if the goal was to radicalise them further and as if that would not have a consequence. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas’s military forces. This is not true. It is targeting Palestinian police forces and killing them, including some such as the chief of police, Tawfiq Jaber, who was actually a former Fatah official who stayed on in his post after Hamas took control of Gaza. What will happen to a society with no security forces? What do the Israelis expect to happen when forces more radical than Hamas gain power?

A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?

Do not be deceived: the persistence of the Palestine problem is the main motive for every anti-American militant in the Arab world and beyond. But now the Bush administration has added Iraq and Afghanistan as additional grievances. America has lost its influence on the Arab masses, even if it can still apply pressure on Arab regimes. But reformists and elites in the Arab world want nothing to do with America.

A failed American administration departs, the promise of a Palestinian state a lie, as more Palestinians are murdered. A new president comes to power, but the people of the Middle East have too much bitter experience of US administrations to have any hope for change. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden and incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton have not demonstrated that their view of the Middle East is at all different from previous administrations. As the world prepares to celebrate a new year, how long before it is once again made to feel the pain of those whose oppression it either ignores or supports?

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel

Advertisements

Father Murders Daughter Allegedly Over Hijab – Commentary

December 11, 2007 10 comments

Aqsa Parvez If you haven’t already heard about this story, it can be found here, or type in “Aqsa Parvez”  into Google News.

As a Muslim, I find this extremely tragic and embarrassing.  Afterall, this is  Canada. Things like this are not supposed to happen in my country.  Moreover, although some may argue that Hijab is something that is compulsory in Islam, it certainly does not warrant murdering one’s daughter.  Afterall, in the Quran, it clearly states that if someone kills one person, it is as if they have killed all of humanity.  It is even more tragic to learn that the brother may have had a hand in this alleged murder. 

Aqsa Parvez

Daughters and sisters are gifts from God.  I have younger siblings, none of whom are sisters.  I have always wished that I had a older or younger sister because it seems like they always bring happiness and joy into the house.  And I am pretty sure I can attribute my desire to have a daughter once I get married.  Truly, they are gems.  I can understand a father’s desire to not only protect his daughter but to have her conform to a belief system which is in her best interest.  But to go to such an extent where one would be driven into a murderous rage is beyond comprehendable.  When this case will be heard in court, I pray to God that this girl’s father will not play the religion card and justify her murder by using Islam.  First of all, this is not true at all and secondly, it will continue to bring down the Muslim community as a whole.  And even if he does use that argument, I hope that people realize that these types of “honour killings” are purely based on twisted cultural practises that are not only outdated today, they were outdated hundreds of years ago (in the context of Islam). 

Aqsa Parvez Memorial

I know that this is very early but it seems to me that this man forgot one thing that Islam inherently teaches all of us: to use rationality and reason.  Islam is not a cut and paste religion.  Contrary to what both Muslims and non-Muslims believe, Islam is inherently philosophical.  We are taught not to follow anything blindly and to be critical so that we may discover its logic which in turn helps us understand Islam more thoroughly and bring us closer to its beliefs.  It seems as though this man, and indeed many others, fail to realize this or completely dismiss it all together.  There is no force in Islam.  Islamically, nobody can force a girl to wear a Hijab.  The purpose of the Hijab, among other things, is to remind the girl of her Islamic beliefs and keep her away from things which are forbidden.  If a girl has no desire to wear a scarf, the whole purpose of the meaning behind it is defeated.

Aqsa Parvez Teens will be teens.  They fight with their parents.  They rebel.  We have all done that when we were younger.  If she didn’t want to wear the Hijab today, it is quite possible that she would have chosen to wear it tomorrow.  It is all about the learning experience.  I have found that we are rarely taught how Merciful Allah really is.  If we sit and pray one night and sincerely repent for our past sins, we are forgiven.  Its as simple as that.  Mercy is bestowed upon us to the extent that when we perform ablution prior to praying, each drop of water that falls from our bodies during that ablution is one sin that is forgiven.  One cannot become pure if first they are not involved in some sort of impurity (not to be taken out of context).  Having said that, it is quite possible that given her life experiences she may have chosen to wear a Hijab somewhere down the road, as is the case with so many Muslim women.  Even if she didn’t end up wearing it, with proper teachings and guidance by her parents she could have become a very good Muslim and thus a good person and human being.  But to force someone, especially a teenager at that, to conform to a world view that she does not share is futile.  It seems as though, under the logic of the father, the image of the Hijab was far more important than the actual meaning behind it.  This is why all of this is so unfortunate. 

 Amandeep Atwal This incident also reminds me of Amandeep Atwal, the Vancouver teen who was also murdered by her father in a fit of rage in 2003.  Amandeep’s murder wasn’t strictly based on religion.  She was stabbed to death by her father because she had a white boyfriend and the father didn’t agree to the relationship. That case can be read about here.  In this case, the father received an automatic life sentence.  Lets hope the father in Aqsa’s tragic case recieves the same.